If the wind is right, you could fly from Westray Island in
Scotland to Papa Westray in 53 seconds, a trip you could
easily make by boat.
This is the shortest commercial flight in the world
and is of course an extreme example.
But so many flights are almost as unnecessary and absurd,
especially on the European continent.
But more and more people are flying and emissions are going up with them,
so some countries are bringing in bans.
France has officially banned short distance domestic flights in an
effort to cut the country's carbon emissions.
It's for journeys possible in less than 2 1/2 hours by train.
And others are looking to follow, but not everybody is a fan of the ban...
...and they don't really work.
So will Europe ground short haul flights and will this work
to cover emissions or backfire?
The busiest commercial routes in Europe are also laughably short.
The flight between Madrid and Barcelona takes
only an hour and a half, and when you add the time it takes
to get to the airport, clear security - the entire
thing can take much longer than...
...the train.
In fact, 1/3 of the busiest flight routes in
Europe can be done by train in under six hours.
Yet 1.8 million people fly just between the two
Spanish cities each year.
Each passenger that flies - even economy - is responsible for up to
80 times more emissions than they would be if they had taken the train.
Of course, flying premium class can create many times more than that,
since one person takes up the space and emissions
that could be shared by many.
Let's see what a flight cost from London to Vienna next week.
It's €25.
That's nothing.
And now we do the train.
The cheapest ticket for next week is €323.
I need to calm down a second.
I need a glass of water.
Flights being so cheap is actually part of a deliberate design.
We identify, for instance, 14 different types of subsidies
that are forwarded to airlines.
You might even include carbon dioxide as a subsidy because
we know it has a cost, but airlines don't pay for it.
In aviation we have many, many different types of subsidies,
such as the fact that you don't pay value added
tax on international flights, for instance.
There's also a kerosene tax exemption.
In Europe you actually pay tax on the fuel in your car, but you
don't pay tax on it to fly.
Changing this setup would involve governments, international aviation
authorities, lobbies, amending the EU taxation law and carbon markets -
so banning flights on certain routes is just easier.
In France, the original plan was to ban flights
along 8 national routes, but after much protest from the
airline industry and lobby groups, it was watered down to three.
The industry argues that this ban won't make a difference,
which in a way is true.
This particular ban only cuts 2.6% of domestic flight emissions in France.
But if you want to make people stop flying short distances,
banning is one thing.
The have to also be attractive alternatives for people.
While national train routes are quite good in a lot of Europe,
problems usually start at the border.
There are different gauges in neighboring countries,
different electrifying systems, different train control systems,
which means you likely need to change trains and you often need
to book each leg separately.
And each country has its own system.
But change is happening under the EU Green Deal.
The European Commission has been working on better connecting
the rail network and integrating rail with roads,
waterways and airports.
In Sweden, some short haul routes have already disappeared
because travelling by train or road has become more attractive.
And my favorite development: night trains are coming back.
So with all this, how effective is banning short haul flights
at saving emissions?
We considered 87 routes in in Germany that are less than 600 kilometers long
and less than six hours in travel time by railway.
Pere Sanchez looked at a host of actual savings of carbon
and other emissions if these routes are substituted.
So in the most critical scenario, we could save around 2% of CO2 emissions.
From those emissions generated in those 87 routes.
This could go up to 22% if a majority of flights were banned,
but since that's not very realistic at the moment,
we're still looking at around 2%.
This is already a saving in terms of CO2, but on the other hand,
clearly shows the limitations of these sort of measures.
There are a few factors that could push savings even below 2%.
If only some airports banned flights between each other.
Passengers could just use a different airport nearby or take
a connecting flight via a different airport.
This can mean more short haul flights on those routes
and more emissions overall.
This is more likely to be the case for business travelers
than those on holiday.
And then most short haul flights in Europe don't have
a train alternative.
Building these would also add CO2 emissions now, but it's really
the long term we need to be looking at.
Because here's the thing about aviation, while it accounts for
less than 3% of overall emissions right now
by 2050, it's predicted to take up 1/4 of the global carbon budget.
So one way or another, we have to curtail emissions.
The question is, are bans the way to go?
It's sort of against the Western idea of freedom and democracy.
Competition is very important.
This has been one of the key aspects
of the construction of the European Union.
Bans is not. they don't really work and that's why, you know,
here is where it's important that we work in a more constructive way.
This includes making trains more attractive,
cheaper tickets, better connections, simpler booking systems,
taxing kerosene and VAT on flights and there is a need for a
Europe wide approach so this doesn't backfire.
For the moment, short-haul bans are essentially
useful because they are symbolic.
They show that the government can do something,
that they take action, that they are not looking on
and where it's clearly avoidable to emit, then there is
an option for governments to hop in and introduce legislation.
The bulk of the problem is still long haul flights,
but until we can fly on cleaner fuels, we can start
cutting emissions where we can.